The Duties of Citizenship

Well I just disagree with Dr. Craig on this. This country is the exact opposite of what it was founded on. There's so many reasons why I can see the point of those who don't want to vote that I can't even go through all of them. I vote. But I do it only to pay for the priveledge to complain. I'm tired of being forced to choose between bad and worse. I'm tired of my "duties of citizenship" being thrown in my face while the duties of those in office are ignored. This is Satans world. I can't change that. I don't care at all if any of you agree or disagree with me. I'm way past caring. In fact, I may start voting for the Democrats just to hasten the end of this ugly world.

Posted by Darrell Miller on 2013-03-20 08:50:16

I think we agree on the majority of issues. Our fundamental disagreement stems from how we view Karl Rove vs a Marxist. Karl Rove doesn't want to go over a cliff. He generally doesn't have any principals and views everything threw the prism of strategizing to win elections. He understands if the economy is bad, it's bad for the GOP. He also understands if he veers too far away from the base of the GOP it will cost elections.

The Marxist wants the economy to collapse so he can transform the country. The Marxist consciously wants to drive us off the cliff and when he sees the cliff edge, he hits the turbo button.

"Are you aware of what happened at our national convention?"

I am. The establishment GOP wants to get rid of the conservatives in the party. They cut off funds to Michele Bachmann's reelection campaign because they wanted to get rid of her.

"Do you think that Romney would have rescinded those executive orders? Not likely."

That may be true but how the government uses the executive order would be the issue. Romney would behave differently from President Obama in that regard.

"By giving up our civil liberties, are we trampling upon all that they fought and died for? "

You are preaching to the choir.... preach on.....

"least his constituents should get their fair share"

The point is to put candidates into the system to change it not to say that's how Washington works. Change how it works...

PS. Texas has two bills on the grill to stop the TSA from molesting people and fight back against NDAA legislation.

Posted by KStrett on 2012-11-15 20:51:21

Very well, then. I had the idea that you believed that Romney was pro-life, pro-gun rights and a free-market economist on health care issues, based on your previous statements. That is why I believed that you thought that he was on the right side of many issues. The truth is, he is just as much of a socialist as Obama on healthcare matters, as evidenced by the fact that he admitted that he was happy that Obama "copied" his Massachusetts health care plan. My point was that he flip-flopped on so many issues that we have no idea what he would have done had he been elected. I understand that you do not believe that they are carbon copies of each other; I don't believe so either, but I think that they both believe (to slightly varying degrees) in big government control over our country and that their end goal is the same - because they are both bought and paid for by the same people - bankers and corporations that want to rule the world.

"President Obama is the most far left president this country has ever seen." Definitely one of the top three. Woodrow Wilson and FDR were pretty bad, too.

"I believe the country could have survived a Romney presidency." - The debt would have still continued to grow, based on the fact that his budget implemented no real cuts. The debt would still continue to be monetized, and the dollar would probably crash anyway, just like it probably will under Obama. Maybe a Romney presidency would have bought us extra time, maybe not. We can predict certain general consequences based on Biblical principles (such as in Proverbs 22:7), or look at God's judgment on Israel for their moral fall and debasement of currency (as told in Isaiah 1). But given the fact that historically hyperinflation and currency crises have frequently happened "unexpectedly" and almost overnight, there is no real way to tell exactly when the country will collapse economically. What we do know is that Obama is driving us off of a cliff at 90 miles per hour. I will not vote for a different candidate who says that he will drive us off the cliff at 75 miles per hour, and then hope that he will come to his senses and slam on the brakes, or hope that his passengers will try to convince him to take his foot off of the gas by putting "political pressure" on him. I will vote for a candidate who has a plan to stop the car and put it in reverse. Scripture is clear on this. We should not give legitimacy to evil men - as Christians, we must support only that which is good. Circumstances may change, but God's principles never change. Christians can join together in doing so, or they can do otherwise, and suffer the consequences. God gives us free will.

"How do we get out of this mess?" - Maybe we don't. Maybe it's too late. Maybe we had our chance in the Republican primary to select a REAL conservative who had a plan to reduce the debt by several trillion dollars over the course of his first four years (and to try to reverse civil liberty violations). Maybe we instead succumbed to the media, to peer pressure and to the establishment, and installed the "lesser of two evils", who lost.

Are you aware of what happened at our national convention? The establishment pushed Ron Paul out at the convention by changing the delegate count threshold so that he could not get his name entered into the nomination process. Did you also know that the Republican leadership changed the process rules at the convention so that minority candidates no longer have a voice? Now, if there is a minority candidate at the Republican convention who has legitimate delegates from state caucuses or primaries, the Republican leadership can unseat his delegates and completely replace them with delegates of their choosing. The Republican party has now become a corrupt tin-pot dictatorship. Here is a video of House Speaker John Boehner reading the result of the "vote" for the rule change off of a teleprompter AT THE SAME TIME THAT THE "VOTE" WAS BEING TAKEN:

It was an obviously falsified vote, because he was reading the vote result from a script. Had these rules been in effect at the RNC in 1976, Ronald Reagan would never have become President in 1980. This is the kind of corruption and falsification that occurred in Stalinist Russia and under Saddam Hussein's regime. Christians should NEVER stand for this. So, maybe there is now no way out. Perhaps, like Israel, we will simply suffer the consequences of our actions.

"You voted him back into office." - Of course, you may argue that if you wish. Do you think that Romney would have rescinded those executive orders? Not likely. Romney likes to demolish the Constitution, too. He even suggested that CHURCHES should be wiretapped by the government in order to help prevent "terrorist" attacks, and echoed the same old tired rhetoric about our "safety" being more important than our civil liberties.

Did our forefathers believe that our safety was more important than our civil liberties, or did they say things like, "give me liberty or give me death" and "they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"? Did they give up safety in the preservation of liberty, by fighting the Revolutionary War? By giving up our civil liberties, are we trampling upon all that they fought and died for?

"....if your choice was between a Marxist and Karl Rove" - What difference does that make in the end if neoconservative monetary policies turn the dollar's value into that of the Mexican peso? Either way, we are circling the drain.

I certainly will agree with you that amnesty for illegals and the talk about trying to pander to certain special interest groups is a waste of time.

"Ron Paul is a hypocrite....loads a bill with pork" - His earmarks DO NOT INCREASE THE SPENDING in a bill. they allocate the money that has already decided to be spent. If those earmarks did not exist, the President would simply be given a blank check to spend the funds however he wishes. Ron Paul opposes the bill, but feels that if the money is going to be spent regardless of his vote, at least his constituents should get their fair share, since they were forced to pay the taxes for it. And he never "sells" his votes for earmarks.

Posted by Smithfriend on 2012-11-14 13:03:39

"I know that you think that Mitt is on the right side of many policies"

I have no illusion about who Mitt Romney is. I didn't support him in the primary, nor did I want him to win the nomination.

What I do believe is President Obama is the most far left president this country has ever seen. I do not believe this country will survive another four years of an Obama Administration. I believe the country could have survived a Romney presidency. When the choice was between Romney and Obama, despite his many flaws, I voted for Romney.

Once again, I did not vote for Romney because I think he is on the right side of many policies. I voted for him because I know who President Obama is and what he believes. One of our disagreement stems from your believe that Mitt and the President are exactly the same. They are not. Here is an example:

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK."

What is President Obama saying here? America has it too good and other countries don't have what we have. That needs to be equaled out.

He believes America has too much wealth, energy is too cheap, and food is too cheap. In other words, American needs to be taken down several notches and put on the same level as other counties. Do you think Mitt Romney wants and believes that? The answer to that question is H-E double hockey sticks NO!

Does Mitt Romney want to fundamentally change this country? No. The assumption that both presidential candidates were the same is completely false. You do not understand the political ideology we are dealing with.

"He is just as bad as Obama. He just says anything to get elected."

Obama is driven by a frightening political ideology. Let's stipulate that Romney is just the typical politician who says whatever he has to in order to get elected. Let's also stipulate he supports certain big government programs.

One candidate wants to fundamentally transform the United States and essentially turn it into a third word country so there can be a global level playing field. The other candidate really doesn't believe in anything other than getting elected. Those two people are not remotely close.

Did you forget that President Obama went to a black liberation church for 20 years? What is black liberation theology?

"If the current system collapses then there are a number of possible scenarios that could result."

None them are remotely close to a constitutional republic. You didn't answer my questions. How do we get out of this mess?

"The fact that 12 million fewer people voted in this election and that a third-party candidate broke the "one million-voter mark" for the first time suggests strongly that people are beginning to get tired of the same old song and dance."

People are tired of the same old big and bigger government choice. Do you believe a third party is the answer?

You said we don't have time to evolve back to the constitution, if we are out of time how does that comport with a third party being a viable solution?

"unless and until people wake up we are instead likely to see autocratic or oligarchic control"

This country has the first generation who have been indoctrinate their whole lives beginning to vote. This generation views socialism more favorably than capitalism. People are not waking up. They are going in the opposite direction.

When they think of George Washington they think of an evil old rich white guy who owned slaves. George Washington is Monte Burns to them.

"Just look at all of the executive orders that have been signed by Obama."

You voted him back into office.

"except for the fact that Romney's budget contained no significant cuts."

You do not understand who President Obama is and what he believes.

" Contrast this with other candidates like Ron Paul,"

Ron Paul has many flaws too. He knows a bill is going to pass, loads it with pork for his district, and then votes no on the bill. When he was asked about this, he simply said that is the way Washington works. Why not change the way Washington works?

"except for the fact that Romney's healthcare policy in Massachusetts served as the blueprint for Obamacare."

Even if they were going to replace Obama care with a GOP Obama care-lite bill, they still would have to repeal it first. The Clintons stopped pushing for socialized medicine because of it's unpopularity. Do you really think the GOP is going to touch it after it's repealed? Even if they did, it would have given us more time.

"Government should get out of the health care industry entirely."

Guess what? The government is knee deep in the health care business. You voted for Obama care kicking in right now. The reason why they fought so hard to implement it is once it goes through there is no going back. It transforms us in a socialist nation.

It also gives the government a myriad of ways to regulate in to law what ever oppressive measures they want. On top of that, it's neo-eugenics.

"except when he supported a "woman's right to choose"

If Romney is a politician who really doesn't care about this issue, he has to worry about his base to get reelected. President Obama's base is for abortion and he doesn't have to worry about getting reelected, as he so eloquently told the American people when he was caught on a hot microphone in Russia.

"except for the fact that judges like John Roberts"

He was definitely a bad pick. It appears that Roberts has a weakness for the opinions of the liberal elites in the Georgetown cocktail party circuit. It would also appear the democrats some how had got wind of this.

Relatively little was know about his judicial philosophy. Ann Coulter actually predicted he was a bad pick right from the beginning because of this. She pointed out when ever little is know about a potential originalist justice, it always turns out bad. The key here is to nominate someone who has a consistent record of ruling in favor of the Constitution.

"legitimize government control over industries like healthcare by calling it a "tax". "

It is far worse than that. The ruling affirmed the government has the ability to tax behavior. You can implement any totalitarian plan you want by taxation.

"There is no guarantee that Romney"

Political pressure could have been applied to Romney even if he didn't want to do this There is a 100% guarantee Obama is going to put radicals on the bench. Once the court goes 5-4 liberal, America is done.

"except for the fact that Romney has flip-flopped on gun control throughout his entire career. "

Mitt Romney would not have given a green light for a UN gun grab the minute he won the election. George Bush wouldn't even have done that.

"What guarantee is there that he is not a wolf in sheep's clothing"

There is a 100% guarantee that President Obama is very much against the 2nd amendment. Now that he doesn't have to worry about answering to anyone, he is going attack the second amendment like we have never seen.

"except that the Liberty Movement is alive and growing. Your statement here is moot."

Third parties have never worked. It would have been far better if there were tea party candidates and Ron Paul supports running as republicans rather than as third party. That is the tactic that changed the democratic party of JFK to the far left party it is now.

"when the alternatives are equally bad, there is no "lesser of two evils"

You honestly believe if your choice was between a Marxist and Karl Rove there is no lesser of evils? Karl Rove is the equivalent of a Marxist? They are the same?

"Instead, why not do as God says in Proverbs 1:10-19, and avoid giving "consent" to evil men"

That mentality would put Hitler into power.

"perhaps that might be a good development."

It doesn't appear that you understand what Obama care does to this country. The funding needs to be cut off. This will require a massive grass roots campaign by both tea party and Ron Paul supporters.

If there is an additional battle for the GOP that is going to sap the focus in fighting Obama care. Once Obama care fully kicks in, there is no going back.

"We don't have the time to attempt to slowly "evolve" it back in the right direction. Maybe a catalytic shake-up is just what they need. "

We are out of time. I haven't heard one person talk about cutting off the funding for Obama care. Instead they are talking about what the GOP needs to do to stay competitive in future elections.

They are blaming the tea party wing of the republican party for the loss, which doesn't make any sense. They believe if we give twenty million new democrat voters amnesty, they will like the GOP much better and might pick up more votes.

Posted by KStrett on 2012-11-13 11:13:08

"If all conservatives adopted the same attitude" and only accepted a "George Washington", some democrats and many independents would likely join them, and they would win. The fact that 12 million fewer people voted in this election and that a third-party candidate broke the "onemillion-voter mark" for the first time suggests strongly that people are beginning to get tired of the same old song and dance.

"If the current system collapses" then there are a number of possible scenarios that could result. Going back to the constitutional republic that our founders believed in would be one favorable scenario; however, unless and until people wake up we are instead likely to see autocratic or oligarchic control. Just look at all of the executive orders that have been signed by Obama. The government now claims the power to seize control over all industries, utilities, communications resources, civil transportation means, and even water and food resources in the event that the President declares an "emergency".

"Mitt Romney would not have pushed us over the edge" - except for the fact that Romney's budget contained no significant cuts. They claim that it did, but the "cuts" were actually cuts in proposed spending increases, resulting in no net reduction to the debt. Contrast this with other candidates like Ron Paul, whose budget called for the elimination of five cabinet-level positions and an actual, two-trillion dollar reduction in spending just in the first year of his presidency alone.

"By not voting for Romney, you voted for Obama care" - except for the fact that Romney's healthcare policy in Massachusetts served as the blueprint for Obamacare. Romney did not promise to just repeal Obamacare, but to "replace it with something else" which would likely be relatively similar. Government should get out of the health care industry entirely.

"Romney was against abortion" - except when he supported a "woman's right to choose".

"By not voting for Romney, you voted for Obama and are putting him in the position to stack SCOTUS with liberal judges" - except for the fact that judges like John Roberts, appointed by "conservative" Presidents, have voted to legitimize government control over industries like healthcare by calling it a "tax". There is no guarantee that Romney, who has been on both sides of every political issue throughout his entire career, would successfully nominate judges who would vote consistently and constitutionally.

"This election is a tipping point". Hopefully.

"...he green lights a UN gun grab. Would Mitt Romney have done that? No." - except for the fact that Romney has flip-flopped on gun control throughout his entire career. What guarantee is there that he is not a wolf in sheep's clothing?

"the best course of action would have been to start a movement and infect the republican party with the ideals libertarianism" - except that the Liberty Movement is alive and growing. Your statement here is moot.

"You can't just sit back and wait for the perfect candidate" - when the alternatives are equally bad, there is no "lesser of two evils". Instead, why not do as God says in Proverbs 1:10-19, and avoid giving "consent" to evil men?

"....a civil war is about to break out in the republican party" - perhaps that might be a good development. We don't have the time to attempt to slowly "evolve" it back in the right direction. Maybe a catalytic shake-up is just what they need.

I know that you think that Mitt is on the right side of many policies, but what you don't seem to see is that he has been on BOTH sides of those policies throughout his entire career - The FED, gun control, abortion, illegal immigration, global warming, healthcare, TARP, and many more. He is just as bad as Obama. He just says anything to get elected. If you don't believe me, simply watch this video:

Sorry that was poorly worded on my part. If all conservatives adopted the same attitude.

"attempting to vote for the lesser of two evils over and over again in the hopes that we can slowly "evolve" it back in the other direction is a pipe dream"

What is your solution? Do you think if the current system collapses we are going to go back to constitutional republic the founders believed in?

"governments simply get bigger and more powerful, protecting their own interests over those of the people, and taking away liberty."

Eventually, you come to a point where the government has complete control.

"If we continue to vote for the "lesser of two evils" year after year, then you can be sure that is the only choice that we will ever be given by our government masters"

If we continually vote for the lesser of two evils the country will go over a cliff edge and we will be past the point of no return. President Obama is the most far left president we have ever had. With his reelection we will go over the cliff edge. Mitt Romney would not have pushed us over the edge.

"What ever happened to Christians standing up for their principles?"

Obama care fundamentally changes this country. It is the final nail in the coffin of America. Once it is implemented, we will never be able to get rid of it. By not voting for Romney, you voted for Obama care.

" What ever happened to Christians voting their conscience?"

Do you support abortion? President Obama voted against a bill that would mandate doctors save the life of a baby that survived an abortion. Romney was against abortion.

"What ever happened to never compromising with evil?"

President Obama might have two to three supreme court picks. If he gets three, that's game over for this country. Romney would not appoint radical leftists to the court. By not voting for Romney, you voted for Obama and are putting him in the position to stack SCOTUS with liberal judges.

"What ever happened to an informed, educated populace that stands up and refuses to have their freedom taken away from them?"

This election is a tipping point. 51% of this country are uniformed, ignorant, don't care, or have no problem with a large obstructive government.

Speaking of freedoms being taken away, about a minute after President Obama was reelected, he green lights a UN gun grab. Would Mitt Romney have done that? No. Are you for that? If your not.... You voted for it.

"to believe that red and blue are the only colors that we have to choose."

The reality is third parties are not successful. Instead of lamenting about how Ron Paul got screwed for 4 years and after he failed to get the nomination this time his supporters will repeat the grieving process, the best course of action would have been to start a movement and infect the republican party with the ideals libertarianism instead of following one guy who is a hypocrite.

"Christians now simply seem content to settle for mediocrity/evil"

You can't just sit back and wait for the perfect candidate to come forward and if they don't, take your ball and bat and go home. If you follow that strategy, you lose and big government wins.

Guess what? It looks like they have. The only way out is if there is a massive organizational grass roots effort by conservatives. The first thing they need to do is to cut of the funding for Obama care. Unfortunately, a civil war is about to break out in the republican party between the tea party / libertarians and the progressive establishment GOP. The majority of conservatives are not professional activists.

Posted by KStrett on 2012-11-11 03:52:49

Dr. Craig, please reconsider your position. Supporting murderers and criminals is not what Jesus would do.

"Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation." - Psalm 146:3

Posted by Luke on 2012-11-09 18:06:19

If everyone adopted the attitude that we should settle for no less than George Washington, then big government would win? How does that follow? If everyone only voted for a "George Washington", then that is the type of candidate who would win! I'm not sure about the validity of your assertion here.

Our government may not have become a hulking monstrosity overnight, but attempting to vote for the lesser of two evils over and over again in the hopes that we can slowly "evolve" it back in the other direction is a pipe dream. By their nature, abusive bureaucratic governments do not like to give up power. That is what history has always shown - governments simply get bigger and more powerful, protecting their own interests over those of the people, and taking away liberty. That is the job of a bureaucracy - to make more rules, and then spend more money enforcing those rules.

A higher court judge has overturned the injunction that you speak of. And American citizens all over the country are being forcibly detained (many of them military veterans), although you are probably unaware of this fact because it is not reported in the mainstream media.

If we continue to vote for the "lesser of two evils" year after year, then you can be sure that is the only choice that we will ever be given by our government masters. What ever happened to Christians standing up for their principles? What ever happened to Christians voting their conscience? What ever happened to never compromising with evil? What ever happened to an informed, educated populace that stands up and refuses to have their freedom taken away from them? Sadly, Christians now simply seem content to settle for mediocrity/evil. We have become a microcosm of our culture, conditioned (like the rest of the population) to believe that red and blue are the only colors that we have to choose.

Posted by Smithfriend on 2012-11-08 21:42:11

This doesn't seem like a "Christian" issue at all, but just some Christians who think their votes don't count. To me, this would fall into the same category as voting for a fringe candidate because one doesn't like either popular candidate. Neither is responsible.

In a case where neither candidate is perfectly biblical in their views, I think we must vote for the most biblical, and certainly issues of abortion and religious liberty are outstanding.

Posted by Paul W. Sherman on 2012-11-08 10:10:52

No attempts to address the classic arguments against government involvement by Christians? Where does our citizenship belong? Do ambassadors vote? What about aliens, do they vote? Who is being pragmatic, the one choosing to abstain on principle or the one who says, "look at all the good we would/would not do if we did/did not vote."

Posted by chris on 2012-11-07 17:23:36

What you seem to be saying is that you will not support anyone who isn't George Washington. By taking that position big government wins. If everyone adopted that attitude, they would be no opposition in the government.

Over a hundred year period, the progressive movement slowly and meticulously evolved this county away from the constitution. People just started waking up at the end of Bush's presidency. That was four years ago.

There have been candidates who believe in the founding principals of this country getting elected to office and/or knocking off establishment GOP candidates as well. This is going to take time and will not happen over night.

"He has said so, and has said that if he were President, he would have taken the same actions as Obama."

What he said was he supported using the NDAA for Islamic extremist terrorists but it should not be used to pick up random American citizens. He said he wouldn't abuse the authority. If you look at Romney character, he wouldn't abuse the authority. The problem is a President in the future could abuse it and it is unconstitutional. A judge issued an injunction on the provision.

After hearing for months on end how every viable candidate will be the ruin of the country, why are people still surprised that some people don’t want to vote?

But I don’t know why someone wouldn't vote because they are only one vote. I don’t think it was for voting but I saw something awhile back where they have just one voice saying, “I’mjust one person, how can I make a difference anyway?” Then they have two voices, then ten voices, then a hundred, etc. That states the problem with the view eloquently. Also, the whole thing is just an odd view anyway, in that the more people agree with you and adopt your view – the more wrong you are.

Posted by Someone on 2012-11-05 13:03:40

I agree with Dr. Craig. We have a duty as citizens to vote. This responsibility should not be taken lightly.

Posted by MauricXe on 2012-11-05 12:06:46

will probably take away more of our rights.

Posted by Smithfriend on 2012-11-05 08:22:37

I agree with Dr. Craig that each ballot counts, and that no one should refrain from voting simply because they believe that their vote is mathematically inconsequential. Under most circumstances in a constitutional republic, the process of voting can be a valuable means of guiding the country in the right direction (especially in local elections where the constituency is more familiar with the candidate, his or her positions, and integrity level).

But what about situations in which both candidates support anti-biblical principles?

Our founding fathers rightly recognized that people have certain inalienable rights that have been given to them by God, and outlined many of those rights in the Constitution. Yet, according to the Washington Times, Barack Obama has assassinated American citizens without due process, and he has also imprisoned American citizens like Brandon Raub simply for speaking out against the government. The 2012 NDAA law, signed by Obama, allows him to indefinitely imprison any American without an attorney, without a trial - simply on the accusation that he is a terrorist. Not a conviction. Simply on the accusation alone.

And Mitt Romney fully supports this demolition of the Constitution. He has said so, and has said that if he were President, he would have taken the same actions as Obama. This outright tyranny should frighten every citizen of this country, and is reason enough to disqualify both candidates for the Presidency. It is a violation of the natural law given to us by God.

What then? Do we vote for the "lesser of two evils"? A vote for the "lesser of two evils" is still a vote for evil. and I believe that God does not want Christians to support or endorse evil in any form. It is a good thing that there are other Presidential candidates on the ballot, because I believe that if there were not, in this instance, abstention would be necessary - simply because it would deny legitimacy and normalcy to evil.